Talk:National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBT studies:
While this is not an LGBT organization, its actions fall within the scope of this WikiProject.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Sept 2005

Note (Sept 2005): NPOV calls for presenting "sexual preferences/sexual orientation" together, as both 'orientation' and 'preference' are inherently biased by implication.

Note that NARTH itself uses the term "sexual adaptation": "The right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable." - Serge Dupouy 21:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Obvious bias towards homosexual behaviour, this organization believes in so-called reparative therapy which most in the mental health community condemn. Ifnord 16:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political?

First of all excuse me for my broken English. It is said in the article: This event is notable as the first (but not last) decision in history to feature a scientific organization changing its policies on political, not scientific ground, as a result of a vote, at least in the 20th century. Is this an official statement of APA? Is this a statement developed by an official, neutral organization or media? I don't see cited source of this fact(?). Because if this is a statement declared only by NARTH, I thing that objectivity of the article is problematic. --Stalik 15:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotta love it. It's perfectly okay for homosexual researchers such as Simon LeVay or sympathizers such as Evelyn Hooker to use poor research controls and get away with it. Face it, there is no such thing as objectivity in psychological research. That's why John Dewey famously said that the scientific method was inapplicable to human behavior. All psychology is political, I don't hear any of you complaining about the Marxist influences in Jean Paiget or Abraham Maslow's research.

What about the twins' study conducted by Dean Hamer? The study's small sample was so small that it was statistically laughable. That's not to mention that only around 50 percent of the identical twins where one twin was homosexual, the other one was also. It should have been a 100 percent result, that is if homosexuality were genetic, but his study also failed to account for environmental factors.

The removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in 1973 had nothing to do with objective standards of research and everything to do with politics. Hooker's study is for one riddled with political biases, such as her work with the gay Marxist Mattachine Society, or her notoriously unreliable heterosexual comparison group. Then you have Kinsey's flawed studies, etc.

If the same standards and methods used by homosexual activists to get homosexuality removed from the DSM were applied by schizophrenia activists, schizophrenia would come off the DSM tomorrow.

The American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc., have become little more than the research arm of the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, etc. Political group indeed. --68.45.161.241 15:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"If the same standards and methods used by homosexual activists to get homosexuality removed from the DSM were applied by schizophrenia activists, schizophrenia would come off the DSM tomorrow." - User 68.45.161.241

You're implying they're analogous. They're not. Schizophrenia is a collection of symptoms which hinder a person's ability to function "normally" and usually involve distress. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, fits none of the criteria for "mental illness". There is nothing inherent in homosexuality which would justify it being put in the DSM. The people who have problems with homosexuality are (1) those who do because of religious reasons or (2) because they do not understand it and are afraid of it (and quite possibly, for some, this fear is related to their own homosexual attractions).Athbhreith 22:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


"There is nothing inherent in homosexuality which would justify it being put in the DSM." There is no genetic proof elucidating that homosexuality is the result of genetic make-up (the "born that way" stance). Psychologists studying homosexuality have found no conclusive evidence that point to homosexuality being the result of genes, hence its categorization as a mental illness. Further, the inability of homosexuals to reproduce denotes the unnatural facet of homosexuality. This is why the article states that the policies of APA were changed based on political, not scientific, reasons. There is no scientific reasoning to explain homosexuality. There is only political reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvca22 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no genetic proof that handedness is genetic either. Therefore, it would be legitimate to classify left-handedness as a mental disorder, correct? After all, they can't use right-handed scissors very well. To say otherwise is only political reasoning. TechBear 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Gene LRRTM1 controls handedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.31.254 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in favor of NARTH

The use of "so-called" to refer to the hard sciences and mainstream political associations is a common tactic used by many to cast doubt on the named groups. I recommend, at the very least, the removal of those terms.

Also, in the last line, where it says: "But consultation of the NARTH website shows that many of its research results have been accepted by peer-reviewed journals," the article makes no mention of what articles have been accepted by the peer-reviewed jorunals (PRJs). If the articles accepted by the PRJs are not on the subject of NARTH's "homosexual therapies," then their mention in this article should be removed, as it seems to imply that while that one paper mentioned was not accepted, others of the same type were. --Triphesas 02:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

The article quotes Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons. How is he connected to NARTH? Fireplace 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He is with the Catholic Medical Association - take a wild guess. 87.171.124.212 08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Nicolosi, User:Mike Hatfield, Joie de Vivre (found this in google news)

This article is about some recent edits here. I think now would be a good time for all personally-interested parties to step back from editing the page a bit, and work here on the talk page to reach a compromise. Assume Good Faith on ALL SIDES, and I think this will go much smoother. I am sure everyone wants this organization to be presented fairly and accurately.--Jimbo Wales 11:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that User:Mike Hatfield, their editorial director made some changes to the article, which were reverted by User:Joie de Vivre. They want Joie to be prohibited from making changes to the article, but obviously there are better way to handle the dispute. I've dropped at note on Mike's talk page, asking him to discuss the matter. utcursch | talk 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I also found this on google news and agree with Jimbo - interested parties should step back. IMHO articles which have more info on the criticism than the actual subject area are generally not neutral. --Trödel 11:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike Hatfield here. I left a message on de Vivre's page a couple of days ago and have had no response yet. I asked her to refrain from reverting my efforts to correct inaccurate information about NARTH. Since I represent NARTH, it seems only ethical to permit us to make changes on an article about our organization. Reverting our corrections simply reinforces bad information. Those wishing to truly understand NARTH should access our web site and decide for themselves what our goals are: narth.com. Mike Hatfield 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia (including Mike Hatfield and including Joie de Vivre). Editors who are experts on a subject matter or who represent an organization that is the subject matter of the article are given no special deference. WP:ATT and WP:CONSENSUS outlines some guiding policies, and WP:COI might be relevant here too. You're welcome to edit the article, and if someone contests your changes, the specifics of the content should be discussed on this talk page. Fireplace 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedians cannot give official statements. If NARTH wants to make an official statement, it should do it on its own page, and then it could be referenced here.Joshuajohanson 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also remember that Wikipedia's policy is to aim for verifiability, not truth. eaolson 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Nicolosi's concerns

I was surprised to discover that Nicolosi's response to my revert of the insertion of unsourced material was a demanding, defamatory letter to Jimbo Wales, rather than a request for discussion on the article's or my Talk page. No one from NARTH contacted me regarding their concerns. I became aware of their position only when NYC JD helpfully informed me on my Talk page that Nicolosi, in his letter to Wales, had stated: "We insist that [Joie de Vivre] be prohibited from making future changes on the NARTH site".

I would have been perfectly willing to discuss User:Mike Hatfield's concerns, had he raised them. In January 2007, I responded to a nearly identical concern raised by User:Acdixon, regarding whether the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) organization maintains that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Our discussion, while thorough, remained polite, and resulted not only in a harmonious resolution of the content dispute, but in mutual thanks and praise. After resolving the issue, User:Acdixon's response was:

"Thank you for remaining diplomatic and open during this discourse. I believe this discussion represents a classic example of how disputes on Wikipedia are to be handled."

I believe that this demonstrates that I would have responded appropriately to Mike Hatfield's concerns, had he made any effort to express them. Rather than by making any effort to communicate with me, Nicolosi immediately responded to the issue with demands to Jimbo Wales that I be banned from contributing. Nicolosi even referred to me as a "lesbian socio-political activist" in his letter. I do not recall ever having revealed either my gender or my sexual orientation on Wikipedia, or to Mr. Nicolosi. It seems that my mere association with WikiProject:LGBT studies led him to make assumptions about my gender and sexual orientation, despite the diversity among the Project's members.

Nicolosi's response as NARTH's representative is a sudden departure from the courteous discussion of content I have come to regard as normal at Wikipedia. I hope that Nicolosi, Hatfield and other NARTH associates will familiarize themselves with the local customs before causing further disruption. I thoroughly agree with Nicolosi's assertion that "It is dangerous for [Wikipedia's] credibility to have political activists slanting articles to fit their own political objectives." Cordially, Joie de Vivre 18:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

This article does not present a neutral point of view because it includes unbalanced quantity of information and does not properly describe the subject matter before engaging in criticism. --Trödel 00:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This edit is indicitive of the problem such a large criticism section has - the criticisms are criticised, the detail is too much, and the page devolves into an argumentative essay instead of an informative encyclopedia article. --Trödel 00:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a views section. Hopefully the article can reflect some of the group's ideas before delving into the criticism section. BabyJonas 07:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On whether NARTH views homosexuality as a mental disorder

This quote may be helpful to whoever wants to tackle this article next:

"NARTH is an association founded to study homosexuality. We make the assumption that obligatory homosexuality is treatable disorder. Our members hold many variations of that essential view. The NARTH officers may opt to deny or remove membership when an individual’s written statements or public speeches show a clear antipathy to this position. We do not always choose to exercise this option, but will do so when, in our judgment, a potential member is likely to be disruptive because he or she is blatantly opposed to our goals." National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (1996), Letter to Ralph Roughton, M.D. from Joseph Nicolosi, NARTH Secretary June 10. Fireplace 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is cited in Jack Drescher MD, "I’m Your Handyman: A History of Reparative Therapies" Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 36(1) 1998. Fireplace 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors may also wish to take a look at this, from the Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=717 Fireplace 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations from NARTH member Gerald Schoenwolf

On African slavery: There is another way, or other ways, to look at the race issue in America," writes Gerald Schoenewolf, a member of NARTH's Science Advisory Committee. "Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle… . Life there was savage … and those brought to America, and other countries, were in many ways better off."[1]

On civil rights, women's rights, and gay rights:"All such movements are destructive."[2]

Holy shit. Joie de Vivre 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In this so-called age of diversity and supposed tolerance, it's still OK to reject the conservative perspective out of hand as being totally invalid and unacceptable. Priceless. breadmanpaul 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Even More On African Slavery:

The Southern Poverty Law Center interviewed Schoenewolf about an opinion piece he had written for NARTH on the damage done by excessive political correctness.

Schoenewolf's opinion piece had described the simplistic depiction of certain disfavored groups -- such as, "white Southerners bad, enslaved peoples good" -- "males bad, females good" -- "business owners bad, laborers good" -- and the stunted political discourse that such politically correct thinking engenders.

[...] the SPLC got it wrong that Schoenewolf said any person is "better off" overall because of a moral wrong done against him.

"No person is better off enslaved, obviously," Schoenewolf told NARTH. "What I tried to say, before my words were twisted by that reporter, is that despite the clear and obvious evil of that practice, we tend to forget that many of the enslaved people had been first been sold into bondage by their fellow countrymen; so coming to America did bring about some eventual good. No social issue has all the 'good guys' lined up on one side and 'bad guys' on the other."

[3] BabyJonas 05:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

-A clarification of his comments. What he's trying to say I believe is that there is no cookie-cutter definition of good or bad. Passion and emotion can often overwhelm logic and rationale, leading to hasty conclusions that are often extreme and end up vilifying a group of people that do not deserve it. He claims that this has occurred to some extent within the movements, where for example the feminist movement has in some cases led to an indiscriminate derision of all men, or where the civil rights movement led some to the indiscriminately deride all whites, etc.

Come on now, who hasn't heard the phrase "All men are pigs" uttered before? :) BabyJonas 05:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, of course, historically there are people who must have felt they themselves were better off as slaves, given that they sold themselves into slavery. This is still not to say it was right, but rather that they were in situations where they had to choose between various moral wrongs & they decided that slavery was the least of them. (Always keep in mind that sometimes, there is no 'morally correct' choice...)71.76.235.161 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's not forget the purpose of Talk pages: to discuss changes to the article, not to discuss the subject. And this isn't even the subject, so... Joie de Vivre 16:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)